True enough, although I rec’d several emails about this.
Amusing speculation all in all, as well as lucwarm old boy’s characterization of our exchanges, but I haven’t the time for this.
In any event, I am sure my dear “fans” will be happy to know that I am considering accepting a position in Jordan, perhaps I’ll get whacked and get to be on the front page. Always prefered going out as a besotted expat though.
Dramaticize much? Get down off the cross and give some other people a chance to use it.
Dramatize, Cross? It’s a motherfucking joke my dear dimwitted fellow, a joke. Good lord, I take me lumps as they come and always have. Me and a cross, silly.
Jordan’s lovely - lucky you. Wish I was there.
Though being a journo I’m really itching to be in Baghdad…
Collounsbury,
As one who was taken aback by your rudeness in GD when I fist posted there over a year ago – and who also sent an e-mail complaining to the mods with no reply – I’ll just echo the sentiments of many here: your continued rudeness and condescention are in direct contrast, and a detriment to, all that knowledge you claim to posses. I’ll be godammed if I log in here for some righteous sociopathic asshole to vent his anger on me.
Ever since then, I have taken to scrolling right past what are, in essense, your extended flames masking as erudition – however, I don’t understand why I have to do that in a forum (GD) that explicitly prohibits said behavior.
I will, however, bet dollars to donuts, that you’re nothing like this IRL. Because if you were, someone would have rippped you a new asshole long ago.
I didn’t!
Oh, you mean another righteous sociopathic asshole…
Oh dear, Collounsbury has upset some people.
In response, I’d like to thank Collounsbury for his frank and forthright rebuttal of some particularly upsetting points other people have made in GD. I’d also like to say that I find his use of language well suited for the sheer stupidity he’s often facing. Please keep up the good work.
One other comment I have to make is on the “IRL someone would have ripped you a new asshole” statements, which surely must rank with “My brother is bigger than yours” for sheer meaningless bravado. Let’s hear it for the internet, where people can express themselves freely without being worried about being beaten for it. Seems like a fucking great thing to me.
Yeah, I fucking figured it was a fucking joke. Then I said, “Aw fuck it, I’ll fucking say it any-fucking-ways.”
Pfft, you guys are fucking wimps.
If Coll’s anything like me (and if he’s lucky, he is) he posts here primarily for his own amusement. The edificiation of others is a distant second. Believe it or not, insulting people is funny. Sometimes it’s downright hysterical.
Not that I know anything for sure about Coll, the cute little fuckknuckle; I’m just projecting.
Too much assholery to wade thru to learn very much from our friend, and yes, he is allowed to get away with Pit behavior in GD.
Plus I think his opinion of how much you can actually learn by reading the government-censored newspapers is higher than mine. The Protocol of the Elders of Zion is not all that edifying in the original Russian, either.
I have also been guilty of dropping the F-bomb into a GD thread, and being the only one to do so. I worried about possible banning for several hours after hitting “Submit”.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - It is the Pit, isn’t it? OK - doo-doo.
Y’all are kinda missing the point. Sorry to belabour it, but it’s pretty clear that (1) Collounsbury consistently engages in nasty abusive ad homenim mean-spirited behavior in the Great Debates forum; (2) his conduct violates the rules of the board; and (3) the staff lets him get away with it.
Yes, there are ways of dealing with his jerkishness, but that doesn’t him any less of a jerk.
The great majority of the comments I have seen in here seem to me to be allowed behaviour in Great Debates. The personal insult mentioned in the OP was recent and Gaudere said she was going to say something about it (I haven’t checked it.) Collounsbury is rude but so far I haven’t seen him break the “no personal insults” rule that often. Granted, I don’t read Great Debates that much.
Collounsbury, there are several posters at the board that cause a great deal of trouble and extra work for the administration. You are one of those posters. I wish you would stop being so abrasive and rude in Great Debates. I’m tired of reading e-mails about you. Could you perhaps try to be less confrontational, and remember to stick to that behaviour more than a couple of days? I hate wasting my time on trying to decipher your every post to see how close you are dancing to the “no personal insults” line.
Please Collounsbury pretty pretty please?
Bullshit. Absolute fucking bullshit.
Why? Because people engage in “nasty abusive ad homenim mean-spirited behavior in the Great Debates forum” all the bloody time. It’s just most people do it in a far more reproachable way than Col. They do it when, in the politest possible english and probably with a smile, they post deliberately inflamatory OP’s, or knowingly pass on lies, or wilfully quote inaccurate information, or try to pass a strawman as another persons words, or in any of a number of ways, all of which I find a lot more offensive than swearing.
Let me try to be as clear on this as possible. I am neither “missing the point” or “dealing with his jerkishness”. I just do not find his behaviour to be offensive or jerkish. I’ve yet to see Col lie, twist the truth, quote bullshit cites, prevaricate, or post something purely aimed at upsetting people. I can think of other posters who do.
Seem reasonable?
Oh, but you are.
While jerky, rude behavior can conceivably include those things you find so irritating, none of them is * personal. * I’m certain you are familiar with the old “flame the post, not the poster” idea, yes?
However obnoxiously someone may argue or fail to argue, it is a completely different issue than someone attacking another person’s intelligence, character, appearance, integrity, or whatever, specifically and directly. It is permitted (albeit discouraged) to be an annoying debater. It is not permitted to take potshots at fellow dopers.
I just explained in detail why I find disingenuous, dishonest, morally bankrupt debating tactics to be a far more reprehensible behavious than swearing. To me, it’s a more offensive attack on your fellow debaters than mre rude language, and certainly more deserving of a “jerkish behaviour” tag.
Now the fact is that the only people whose opinions really matter on this are the mods. It seems though that the rest of us are allowed to add our 2 cents, so posters such as yourself and lucwarm can criticise Col, and others are allowed to defend him.
So bearing this in mind, and your ridiculously patronising “oh, but you are”, please excuse me if I tell you to fuck right off. I’m not missing the point, it’s just my viewpoint is different to yours. Again, I hope that seems reasonable.
Nope.
Let me offer an example - here’s a snippet of one of Collounsbury’s recent posts:
The above is a personal insult. Now, you may think quoting bullshit cites is worse than engaging in personal insult, but, as I understand things, personal insults are not supposed to be allowed in the Great Debates forum.
Also, excessive use of profanity is supposed to be improper. Despite this, Collounsbury is totally excessive in his use of profanity:
So, I don’t see how you can seriously deny that Collounsbury repeatedly violates the rules of the forum.
Now, your point seems to be that people can engage in “nasty” behaviour without violating the rules, and that that sort of behaviour can be worse than that of Collounsbury. I disagree, but ultimately, there’s no need to debate the semantics of “nasty” “mean-spirited” and “ad hominem.”
See, the fact remains that Collounsbury continues to flout the rules, and nothing is done about it. All you are saying is that you would have different rules.
If anyone in GD deserves a comment like this once in a while, and many do, it is december. What’s the problem with having a rule system that’s flexible enough to allow folks to occasionally call a spade a spade ? GD isn’t the Fucking supreme court. The rules are flexible. Lots of people abuse them in different ways. Then again, maybe it’s not abuse. Perhaps it’s an intended outgrowth of rules which create a nice steamy pile of dung in which discourse can flourish. You’re free to be a prissy old biddy if you wish, but I say spare the the roundup, and save the debate.
Perhaps Squink you might provide a list of the many straight dopers that deserve to be called drooling idiots in GD, and please refrain from racist cliches.
What racist cliche?